Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 4 of 21
things are actually working just as the white house planned; apparently you guys have never heard of "order out of chaos" or "problem+ reaction= solution".. but as long as the Iraqis are busy fighting themsleves, sumberged in chaos and insecurity.. then it is only a matter of time until their collective will to resist breaks down and they accept a permanant UN authority in the region. there is no solution, thats the beauty, neverending war and chaos brings endless oppertunity for the globalists to fragment and influence society in the direction of a single centralized government
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I knew this was coming. 'Scuse me folks, but I feel the need to answer our Hero point for point. Like this one. You see the trick is, when your opponant criticises a specific thing (in this case, our war in Iraq) the trick is to generalize their argument as much as you can (in this case, say I'm talking about all wars) and go for the jugular. If you can imply that your opponent is soft on Nazis, so much the better.
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So really, to surge is to surrender--surrender to the lie, surrender to our delusion of omnipotence--but above all, we continue to surrender American lives, day after day, for exactly nothing.
By your definition we surrendered hundreds of thousands of lives to the Nazis in World War II. By your definition we were losing the war on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima.
Unfortunately for Hero, I was talking about this useless war in Iraq, not all wars in general and certainly not the Second World War.
Quote:Now you see what Hero's doing? He moved within one sentence from my vision of this specific war to "war's historical context." It's really important to him that I not be talking only about this embarrassing failure in front of us. I must just be anti-war, you see.
Yours is a narrow vision of this war and ignores war's historical context.
Quote:Here's where Hero begins to rev up the paranoia because this pointless and wasteful war in Iraq is really just a battle in the larger war against our great unified enemy. You see, the folks we're slaughtering by the tens of thousands over there are all of them allies of "our enemy." Hero wants you to forget that Iraq had no ties to Osama, that this Iraqi adventure of ours was and is a detour in his beloved GWOT.
A withdrawl would be an admission of defeat and a surrender of both the battlefield and the initiative to the enemy. It could invite a new enemy offensive against us and our allies and would place us in the position of being unwilling or unable to stop such an offensive.
Quote:A troubling rhetorical flourish here. After the grammar school level lesson in statecraft, Hero compares our humiliation in Iraq to the defeats of Napoleon and Hitler. Hrm.
History has taught us that one battle may or may not mean defeat in war. If we give up on Iraq then its not merely one battle its an entire campaign and lost campaigns do lead to total defeat. Ask Napoleon, Hitler, and any number of tyrants.
Quote:Hero really wants to run for office. Total emotional appeal and non sequitur. Again, I was speaking specifically about the Iraq debackle, not all wars in all times.
You could even ask a fair number of Americans whose history includes total defeat. The American Civil war taught us that even Americans can be totally defeated, their lands occupied, and their elected governments thrown over.
Quote:Wowzers! Bet you all didn't realize that if we pull our troups out of Iraq (I'm guessing, ever) our nation will be defeated. What Hero doesn't want you to realize is that our Iraqi escapade is a fruitless, pointless clusterfuck.
3,000 dead Americans. So many. Every American death is a great tragedy. But historically its a fraction. If the world's greatest power can be so easily defeated by so few casualties what does this really say?
By Hero's definition, America was surely defeated in Viet Nam, but did our withdrawal of troops from that sorry peninsula usher in a new dark age here at home? Did the dominos we were so fervently promised would fall, even jiggle?
Quote:Oh my fricken god. Look at us now, "last place" among nations if we don't "stay the course." All because our projected capitalist utopia in the Middle East didn't pan out. Amazing.
Perhaps America is not the strongest. Most, if not all countries could and would sustain greater losses and yet 'carry on'. Then where are we? Last place.
Quote:
North Korea willNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I give one solitary point to Hero...
The US has proven that a few thousand lives can move them. It can move them to declare war. It can move them to withdraw from war.
During World War II, there were campaigns where we sustained thousands of losses per day. I do occasionally wonder if we have the resolve to do that nowadays.
But if we are to find the resolve to see a war through to the end, through horrible loss and strife and suffering... I want it to be a better war than the one we find ourselves in within Iraq. Very little (if anything) has been 'right' about this conflict, and I feel we've paid a high price with little result. A madman is out of office in Iraq, but he will be replaced by new madmen as soon as we leave. And we can't stay there forever.
Anyway, what I said before, I reiterate. Whether we surge or not, the troops come home within the year. That's something to celebrate. The end to this debacle is in sight.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
global war on terror
fight against terror - blah blah
our safety here at home - indirect way of saying 9/11
We thought that these elections - who is this WE ? I never thought so.
But in 2006, the opposite happened - who'da thunk ? heckuva job though !
Al Qaeda terrorists - fig leaf blah blah blah
Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger - yep, their day of reckoning was at hand with a majority Shiite government
Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran - I see the big gun being cranked around to aim elsewhere
vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today - what, it's NOT al Qaeda?.
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me - TL ^2 (too little, too late)
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. Which I then ignored.
In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. Drop the word 'magic' and you get closer to the truth.
One message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. And my legacy, of course. Heh heh heh heh
The consequences of failure are clear, though what constitutes success is still hazy.
On September the 11th, 2001 - AHHHHhhhh ! NOW I'm satisfied. It had to be in there somewhere.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad
It used to be Tikrit, then Fallujah, then western Iraq, but today it's Baghdad.
There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents - oh ! the Fallujha plan ! That worked so well, too.
But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. Actually what they say is TL^2.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Good question !
This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. Not such a good answer.
Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated. What does that mean exactly? Winning hearts and minds by leveling neighborhoods ?
The Prime Minister told his people: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation." OOOhhh yeah ! baby. I'm sure your militias ... I mean troops, will do just fine.
reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible - I thought hanging Hussein was supposed to do that.
-------------------
Anyone want to pick this up where I left off?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Great speech, great plan, and great whinny assed reaction from the leftist browncoats. How the reality of this conflict escapes you apes is mind-boggling. I guessed where you all stood on this just from reading the thread title, so I shouldn't be surprised.....well, I am. You freaks never cease to amaze. How are you still bringing up the issue of WMDs, or US casualties? WMD's haven't been apart of the Iraq debate in over a year. As far as US casualties, the number is so small...its moot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.
Then why don't we approach it that way, Mr. President? 20,000 + troops doesn't show a lot of dedication to this "decisive ideological struggle"
Do you even pay attention to your approval ratings anymore? How about the dissenters within your own party?
Sheesh. At least if he's going to feed us crap, he should back it up with actions.
Oh, yes, and the "I listen to my military advisors" vs. "He's like Lincoln - he fires all the bad generals" is funny, too.
It's so funny, I forgot to laugh.
I really don't want us to still be in Iraq come 2063.
::sighs, then walks away::
P.S. Thank you SignyM for the transcript. I got bored of the wooden-ness after a minute or so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unfortunately, regardless of what we think about the war up to this point, the question right now is, do we leave the Iraqis hanging out to dry again? We crapped on them once at the end of Desert Storm when we urged the Shi'a to rebel agains Saddam, and then didn't support them. If we drop them in the shit and then leave them again, we might as well just seal the borders and watch the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket. Not my preference for a future.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If we drop them in the shit we might as well just watch the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket." I know you don't believe that. There are whole areas of the world that have not much to do with the middle east. Why, just look at Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela ... everything there is going just fine ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"WMD's haven't been apart of the Iraq debate in over a year."
There is a saying about people who can't remember history. Now, what was it again....?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm in favor of losing the war in Iraq. And we should do it as quickly as possible. If we lose now, rather than extending the losing out over the next twenty years, we'll save billions of dollars and we can begin rebuilding our tarnished reputation that much sooner.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME